MIND IS MUCH MORE THAN PSYCHOLOGY

Mind is much more than psychology. Do you agree?

You can know something about psychology because - and only because - of your mind, spirit, or ghost (or however you want to call it in English), but never because of your psyche, soul, or even psychology.

The mind is the main source for the usage of the brain. Mind and brain have an interdependent relationship to each other. The mind is a cultural phenomenon, and the brain is a natural phenomenon.

The brain and the mind are both because there is this interdependent relationship I mentioned. The brain does its „job“ in a natural way, and the mind does its „job“ in a cultural way.

Behaviour or behaviourism is a realm of biology, also called biology of behaviour.

Also: What does it mean when rivers and lakes are always present in dreams?

The answer has to do with the mind but notat least not necessarily with psychology.

Some possible answers:
1) The person with such a dream has much to do with rivers and lakes. And that's all.
2) The person with such a dream lacks the „element water“. It is associated with the qualities of emotion and intuition.
3) The person with such a dream can move very well (perhaps too well).
4) The person with such a dream is not able to move (and wants to solve this problem).
4) The person with such a dream is very much (perhaps too much) interested in development, espcially in a flowing or fluvial development.
6) The person with such a dream hates development, especially a flowing or fluvial development (and wants to solve this problem).
....
n) The person with such a dream wants to kill his father and to marry his mother.

I think that the main function of dreams is to to destress the (brain of) living beings, especially human beings; so that they help them to get along with stressful or other complicated experiences.

We ourselves can solve most of our problems and do it in many various ways. We do not need any Freud, Freudian, Freudianist, or other preachers. Most children grow up without any negative results of problems, because they solve their problems themselves and with the help of their parents and other relatives. If the revers were true, then there would be more problematic children or more so-called „experts“ who design problematic children. And indeed: since we have so-called „experts“ the problematic children have been becoming more and more. So-called „experts“ design problems and problematic humans, and I know the reason behind it. For the same reason we also do not need any Marx, Marxian, Marxist, or other preachers. If you start to consult a so-called „expert“, then you start the misuse.

In most cases, a person gets more problems than this person had before the „careful analysis“ you mentioned (**). Such cases are not or mostly not published, because publishing such cases is forbidden or at least a taboo.

In the Land of Lies war is „peace“, ideality is „reality“, dreams are „non-dreams“, deseases are „cures“, ..., and so on.

Would you agree, if I said that language can damage people? You do not need medicines or drugs in order to become damaged, if you have a language. Language is as effective as or even more effective than medicines and drugs are. The effect of language is a lengthy one, is awful long. Therefore it is very suitable when it comes to influence anyone and everyone, each person and a whole society. Look into societies where is no psycho-„market“ (for example in Amazonia or other non-urban regions) - the people of this societies have almost no problems, because they are not damaged by the psycho-„market“, the socio-„market“, and other hyper-modern „markets“ nobody needs. This „markets“ indicate the modern civilisation and its abnormality. Civilisations as urban societies yield such „markets“ which „market“ the abnormality. So again: The Occidental culture in its modern or civilised forms designs, constructs, produces patients in order to „market“ them, because there is no other possibility anymore to control them. The main effect of that is a society of damaged people, of patients.

Patients are made. Therefore some psychiatrists imitated lawyers by calling their patients „clients“.

I mean that people who are normal become abnormal because of the psycho-„market“, the interests of those who become rich and powerful, because they really make patients, problematic humans ... - as I said before. This finding is a historical fact!

But note: We are not only talking about psychiatry but about the whole psycho-„market“.

Augustinus is right: Prosperity inevitably leads to depravity.

Repetitions or recurrences belong to development like cycles or spiral cycles to change in general. That's fundamental. So the question is whether repetitions or recurrences can really be „caused by a fix“ or „based ... on such ... types of dream content“. If you have a pain and a dream and think they depend on each other, then it is probably not in that way that your dream is the cause of your pain and the repetition or recurrence of your dream and pain, but in that way that your pain causes your dream, and both are under the „control“ of repetition or recurrence. If you try to delete repetition or recurrence, you will fail, because you can not delete them as such, but you can i.e. change „negative“ repetitions or recurrences into „positive“ repetitions or recurrences by changing your actions and thoughts. Try to change your actions and thoughts, so that your dream contents can also change. In that case, a tiny part of your development changes, what means that the repetitions or recurrences also change.

What has really become new since the modern Occidental times is the huge dimension, the technical development, especially the enormous acceleration of the technical development, and - as a result - the possibility that machines replace all human beings (**|**). Humans have always tried to design a new religion, but this time the designers will probably either integrate or exterminate all humans of this planet, and this will probably include a huge reduction of the number of the humans.

Hedonism leads i.a. to the conclusion that we should just believe whatever gives us the most pleasure to believe.

The consciousness is neither identical nor reducible to the brain. The argument that consciousness vanishes with the death of its living being is not proven, and the argument against it is not disproven - so it is possible that the consciousness does not vanish with the death of its living being, and perhaps it will never vanish. The consciousness exists, has affect, and therefore it is possible that it exists for ever and ever - like that what in former days was called „psyche“, „soul“; but the consciousness is also neither identical nor reducible to psyche or soul. The consciousness is part of the body (nervus system), part of the mind or the signs (semiotical, linguistical, logical, mathematical system), but most of all it is independent.

The problem is that the humans know merley a little bit of the consciousness - probably because the consciousness is pretty much independent.

As long as we humans do not know whether the consciousness is dependent or independent, we can say that the consciousness is partly independent or partly dependent but not that it is absolutely independent or absoluetly dependent - similar to the will as a relatively free will or relatively unfree will.

The problem is that people often think that dream contents are problems, but they are not, because the brain tries to solve problems which have been experienced in the past - how near or far this past may ever be - for the (plaesure of the) person('s life) it belongs to. A brain has to neurologically save the person('s life) it belongs to. That does not mean that dream contents are not interesting or have nothing to do with reality, but the Interpretations of dream contents are less or even not part of any problem solution but more part of the problem or even the problem itself. So you would have a new dream content in order to solve the interpretation of your last dream content ..., and so on ..., if you believed (too much) in the solution of interpretations of dream contents, so that this belief can become a new religion.

The modern religion is something like an ideology, and the modern deities are idols, false gods, for example such as dream interpreters or therapists (both formerly known as shamans). So a modern areligious person would have to be one who has nothing to do with this modern religion, because this modern religion is also a modern kind of superstition.

Dream contents themselves are no problem, but they can lead to problems, if the interpretations of dream contensts are the problem.

One should nevertheless talk about dreams but not in the sense that they are expected to do wonders. Brains do wonders! They are neurological, thus biological.
Maybe that a more neutral statement can come again from Goethe: „

Man suche nur nichts hinter den Phänomenen; sie selbst sind die Lehre.“
Free translation:
„Search nothing beyond the phenomena, they themselves are the theory.“

I say that we should defend our own interpretations of our dream contents, because I am for freedom and against any dictatorship, also and especially against the dictatorship of so-called „experts“.

You interpret your dream contents, don't you? Andf if you tell your dream contents to others, they begin to interpret your dream contents as well, don't they? And if you tell your dream contents to so-called „experts“, they begin to interpret your dream contents too, don't they? This implies that there are many interpretations possible and nearly always also present. But which interpretation is true? Probably no one. There is no real „expert“ system which can legitimately say: „This (thus: no other!) interpretation is true.“ We all interpret our dreams, and we should do it (of course!), but we are not able to find out what the truth of these dream contents are. Interpretations and concepts like „unconscious“ or „subconscious“ are as much arbitrary as other interpretations and concepts. You can „go“ through all of them, and you will not find any of them being really „better“ or „more true“ than the others. People in New Guinea also interpret dream contents, and their interpretations are very good, perhaps better than the interpretations of the so-called „experts“ in Europe, USA, Canada, ..., but we do not know and we do not have to know whether they are „more true“ or not. So what? It's no problem at all.

Two examples:
1) If a man dreams to kill his father or to sleep with his mother, then he has not necessarily a „problem“, e.g. an „Oedipus complex“. The „Oedipus complex“ is an absolutely arbitrary interpretattion, but it is as much believed as the resurrection of Jesus Christ was.
2) If a woman dreams of e.g. a strong lion or baer, or of a big tower, then she has not necessarily a „problem“, e.g. a „penis envy“. The „penis envy“ is also an absolutely arbitrary interpretattion, and it is not as much believed as the resurrection of Jesus Christ was, because the feminism, another absolutely arbitrary interpretation, forbids it.

Firstly, we are talking about interpretations of dream contents and not about psychonalysis (the psychoanalysis has not and should never have an interpretation monopole!)

Secondly, the fact that people had no or at least less problems with dream contents in former days shows that problems are made in order to manage them, to control people, to become rich and thus powerful, or to remain rich and thus powerful. One can not always seperate the psycho-market and the psycho-communism from other living forms (especially from human beings!) in order to excuse the existence of the the psycho-market and the psycho-communism and, if wanted, put them together also in order to excuse the existence of the the psycho-market and the psycho-communism. One has to accept and especially to respect the life of each human.

Thirdly, most people solve their problems by themselves and do not need any help; but the more problems so-called „experts“ create the more probelamtic people exist and want to be helped, thus the psycho-market and psycho-communism can grow and grow with the made problems.

There are many interpretations which are more correct than the pschoanalytic interpretations. And the „Oedipus complex“ and most other psychoanalytic interpretations are nonsense. Do you believe in that? Nothing can be verified or falsified - it is just arbitrariness, and nearly all of it depends on the belief, faith, trust and the „marketing“ and propaganda. Greek mythology and psycho... - that fits, because nothing of the two is really concrete. Don't get me wrong, because I am not saying that psychoanalyisis is not interesting, I am saying that psychoanalyisis is a false theory, a false theology.

An analysis is deemed to be problematic because that psychoanalysis is false and thus problematic.

The psychoanalysis may be an interesting kind of nihilistic philosophy, but it should not directly have anything to do with personal lives.

One of the main problems is that the psychoanalysis has a strong hierarchy with Freud as the „godfather of psychoanalysis“ ... and so on ... and seems to literally dictate what and who „neurotic“ is. Every male has an „Oedipus complex“ and every woman has an „Electra complex“, and if they say that they do not have such „complexes“, then they are told that they are „defending“, their „defense mechanism“ is revolting against the „godfather of psychoanalysis“. That is dictatorship!

I am against dictatorship!

Should each adult person become a childlike person or/and the species homo sapiens become the species homo erectus or even one species of the genus australopithecus?

Of course: No.

„Man sollte nicht überrascht sein, wenn sich zeigt, wie mit fortschreitender Weltvernetzung die Symptome der Misanthropie anwachsen. Wenn Menschenfurcht eine naturwüchsige Antwort auf unwillkommene Nachbarschaft bedeutet, läßt sich angesichts der erzwungenen Fernnachbarschaften der meisten mit den meisten eine misanthropische Epidemie ohne Beispiel vorhersehen. Das wird nur jene in Erstaunen setzen, die vergessen haben, daß die Ausdrücke »Nachbar« und »Feind« herkömmlich nahezu Synonyme waren.“ - Peter Sloterdijk, Im Weltinnenraum des Kapitals, 2005, S. 220.
Translation:
„It should come as no surprise if it transpires that the symptoms of misanthropy increase with the progressive interconnection of the world. If fear of humans means a primal response to unwelcome neighbours, an unprecedented misanthropic epidemic would be the foreseeable result of the imposed long-distance vicinity between most people and most others. This should only amaze those who have forgotten that the words »neighbour« and »enemy« were traditionally almost synonymous.“ - Peter Sloterdijk, The World Interior of Capitalism, 2005, p. 141.

The brain is a part of the body, scintifically spoken: a part of biology, especially neurology. Brain is not mind, and both are not psyche. Brain is scientifically accessible, but psyche and mind are scientifically not accessible, because they are scientifically not objectifiable. So psychology is not a scientifical discipline. Psychology has no scientifical object. It can merely be a part of a theory.

Nobody knows what psyche really is. That is the reason why it is used for everything. It is no thing (=> no-thing => nothing), and if no thing is used for everything, then you can be sure that that can never be a real scientifical object and that those people who use it in that way are charlatans, quacks, quacksalvers, and so on.

I am talking about a scientific object, and that is well defined. Psyche is no scientific object.

It is not debatable. And my text is no critique.

No one can say what „psyche“ really „is“.

The scientific object of physics is „nature“ with its „bodies“. There is no doubt about it. The word „physics“ is derived from the Greek word „physika“ which means „nature“. It is well known what „nature“ and its „bodies“ mean.

If you know what „psyche“ really is, then you would be God or one of the Godwannabes who claim to know what it is, although they do not know what it is. The word „psyche“ has always been an abstraction, a philosophical or/and religious term without any concrete meaning, without any material aspect; so psyche is merely an abstraction like a whiff (puff or tang), thus no thing, no-thing, nothing.

The „feelings“ and the „thoughts“ are not what „psyche“ means. The „feelings“ are feelings, the „thoughts“ are thoughts, and the „psyche“ is psyche. Why are you so stubborn when it comes to accept what words, terms, and concepts mean? The natural base for thoughts is the brain, and the brain science is called neurology which is a part of biology. We know what that means. It has nothing to do with psychology. The natural base for feelings is also the natural living body, and the science of the natural living body is biology. We know what that means. It has nothing to do with psychology. What you are saying about „feelings“ and „thoughts“ is hocus-pocus when it comes to bring them in a discipline which they definitely do not belong to.

They „invent“, „invent“, and „invent“ more and more „stuff“ („mental illness“ is merely one of that nonsense stuff) in order to control more and more humans, at last 99% of all humans (before all humans will be replaced by machines? [**|**]).

The spirit is very much more connected with the processing of the informations in the brain, whereas the soul (originally it was the correct English translation for the Ancient Greek word „psyche“) is more connected with the Platonic, the Platonico-Christian realm (heaven as the Christian example).

I believe the psyche is not much more than the soul. Mind is much more than psychology. Both mind and body have not much to do with psyche and psychology. But soul has much to do with psyche and psychology.

Concepts do not change, if they are true - that means: logically true, correctly defined, logically correct. But if they are not true, then they change - mostly just after the changing of the power relations. Currently there are many untrue concepts.

„Modern psychology - a joke?“ (**). One can call it a „joke“, yes, but unfortunately it is a „serious joke“, so that one should say: „it is a part of a typical modern problem“.

Psychological underpinnings are fairly new, and if philosophy is a joke, surely, psychology is too. But, if it is, then the joke is too recent, as well, and no one is lauhing, (yet), and if they do, it usually assumed, that the last laugh is on them. And no one really wants that.

Modern psychology is merely useless, if it is as it was: a subdiscipline of philosophy and not more.

The chemical industry and other industries want to sell their „products“. First they selled them only on physicians, then they started to sell them also on psychyatrists or even psychologists. And the next step is already achieved, isn't it? If yes: what will be the after next step?

Information storage.

There are many information memories.

Concerning (1) nature: in all things of the universe, thus in everything that exists, thus also in brains.

Concerning (2) human culture: (2,1) in brains again; (2,2) in libraries; (2,3) in machines, thus also in computers, robotors, and so on.

That is really a huge problem: Mental illnesses are fabriacted in an industrial complex of mentally ill brains.

Psychiatry as an arm of the state, and the state as an arm of the multinational corporations and banks.

If there is a dichotomy of consciousness and unconsciousness, and if there is a subconsciousness too, then there must be a dichotomy of superconsciousness and subconsciousness too.

I have been told that subconsciousness is not like unconsciousness. According to that subconsciousness must be between consciousness and unconsciousness.

It is clear, that, if there is consciousness, then there must be also unconsciousness (I know, in English there is only the adjective „unconscious“ but not the noun „unconsciousness“). But if there is also something that is both not conscious and not unconscious, then it can be said that it is „pre-conscious“ or just subconscious. And if there is something pre-conscious or subconscious, then there must be something too that is post-conscious or superconscious. (Note: pre-conscious and subconscious are as unequal as post-conscious and superconscious). This gedankenexperiment should be followed by discussion.

Let's have a little bit philosophical anatomy and neurology:

Let's say we have (1) a cerebral instinct, thus an instinct brain, (2) a cerebellum, thus a kleinhirn, (3), cerebral emotions, thus an emotion brain, and (4) a cerebral reason, thus a reason brain.

1) Dark blue: Instinct brain.
2) Pink: Kleinhirn (cerebellum).
3) Red: Emotion brain.
4) Light blue: Reason brain.

Now, neurologically and psychoanalytically, Freud would perhaps say that the instinct brain is neurologically what the „Es“ (English: „Id“) and „das Unbewußte“ (English: „the unconscious“) psychoanalytically is, that the reason brain is what the „Ich“ (in English: „I“, „ego“„self“) and „das Bewußte“ (English: „the conscious“) psychoanalytically is. But with what would he correlate the „Über-Ich“ (English: „superego“, „high self“)? Probably with the reason brain too. But it is something like „das Überbewußte“ (English: „the superconscious“ [my invention]). The supersonsciousness is the „group- brain-as-it-is-stray-represented-in-each-individual-reason-brain“, especially the moral system of a group (couple, family, tribe, folk, people, nation, culture ... and so on). And the subconsciousness is the „brain-as-the-stray-parts-between-the-instinctive-brain-and-the-reason-brain“.

According to logic and linguistics, there must also be the prefix „post“ (cf. for example „posthuman“), if there is the prefix „pre“ (cf. for example „prehuman“), and there must also be the prefix „super-“ (cf. for example „superordination“), if there is the prefix „sub-“ (cf. for example „subordination). It is a question of word meaning or concept definition. For example: the term „a posteriori“ is the semantic, especially temporal, and thus also conceptual opposite of the term „a priori“, and the term „superconscious“ is the semantic and thus also conceptual opposite of the term „subconscious“.

And even if science does not prove or disprove this empirically, then there nevertheless remains the theoretical possibility of it.

The superconsciousness is comparable with a godhood that is coming from outside and inside of us. Now, the anti-religious and anti-theistic humans will say: „This is the same old religion“ . I do not care. Religion does not disappear by forbidding the word „religion“. We can call it „spiritual training“ too. It does not matter at all. At least as long as our brains will work in this way, the phenomenon and the corresponding behavior as a whole will not disappear.

Imagine there is no metaphysics and no physics anymore, because both are indirectly forbidden by the government. There is merely something like a socialpsychological religion which is called „science“.

Pure existence and its analysis (compare: „Dasein“ and „Daseinsanalyse“ - Martin Heidegger) is the better ane more useful and more successful, way than psychoanalysis.

Psychiatry is also a system of religion and belief in god(s).

But does the word „rationalization“ not also have a positive meaning? I know, the psychologization has changed the meaning of the word „rationalization“, but the word had a different meaning before that psychologization. I prefer the non-psychologized meaning of the word „rationalization“. Or is this not any longer possible in English? Am I now not „welcomed“ to the psycholgism club?

Political correctness, psychologism and sociologism, for example, are deceptive.

Consciousness is the immediately findable total content of the spiritual and emotional (affective) experience.

The teem „immediately findable total content“ means that the total content of the spiritual and emotional experience can be immediately found and, for example, communicated to others. Forgotten content, for example, is not present anymore, and some parts of the forgotten content come back sometimes, ... and so on.

I did not say „is found“ but „can be found“ or „is immediately findable“, namely by the owner of the consciousness, philosophically said: by the subject. This is important, because the owner of the consciousness does not always immediately find the spiritual and emotional content.

Biologically and especially neurologically said, the consciousness is part of the brain.

1) Dark blue: Instinct brain.
2) Pink: Kleinhirn (cerebellum).
3) Red: Emotion brain.
4) Light blue: Reason brain.

The conscious parts of the brain can be found in the reason brain (light blue => 4), in the emotion brain (red => 3), and in the Kleinhirn (cerebellum [pink => 2]).

But because of the fact that we are talking about this more philosophically, we have to talk about the owner of the consciousness: the subject.

One can also say that the consciousness itself is the owner - it depends on the so-called „point of view“.

Who or what is doing the finding? If it is the consciousness itself, then the next question comes immediately: Why is it not the subject in a philosophical sense? The brain of the subject is the hint. If it is this subject, then we can also ask: Why is it not the consciousness itself? We just do not know very much about consciousness, so it can also be possible that the consciousness does its own work in an absolute sense (so that the subject is merely the means of the consciousness). I would not have a big problem with both interpretations.

- Register -